Saturday, 29 April 2017

I found this folder the other day: the first draft of Turner, hand-written on an island in 2006. Saturday 25th August to Monday 4th September, to be exact, on Ynys Enlli. Story plans, maps, and my scrawled draft, mostly written by gaslight because the house I rented had no electricity. I thought I'd share this historical record before I recycle it! I love the old note on one sheet that aimed for chapters 1-4 to only display "cryptic horror", but for the chapters after that to "slowly explain".

I was worried about the only copy of Turner falling off the boat back to the mainland and sinking into the sea. Maybe that inspired They Move Below. But once I had it typed up and backed up I was able to sleep sound again.

Thursday, 27 April 2017

Today I saw an interesting post by Dan Holloway: We Need to Talk About World Intellectual Property (IP) Day. Have a read. He gives some real examples where IP affects decisions. As an ex-librarian (subject and enquiry desk) I used to come across those and others daily. As a full-time writer I also come across them daily, though often from a slightly different angle.

I hate the way copyright on classic works of art has expired - but you end up not being able to re-use that work because a gallery or museum manages to restrict it.

I hate the way that there might be stories and characters in the public domain (fairy tales and so on), yet you have to be careful because companies like Disney may have used those names and stories in works they have then copyrighted and trademarked, meaning you then have to be careful how you use things that should be available to all.

I hate the way trademarks are allowed to use and restrict common words (and in some cases images, fonts, colours).

I take a photo I want to use - but maybe one of the buildings in it is protected or restricted and I am infringing in some way?

I record a video and it shows logos and images in the background, maybe a poster, which is copyright with reproduction forbidden, perhaps exacerbated by music playing from a nearby TV which is also copyrighted.

We easily end up with a minefield of complications that require an (expensive) legal expert to fully understand and navigate. Partly this complex scenario has built up because so many organisations keep campaigning to add yet more piecemeal restrictions, and no-one has an overall view.

One of the reasons I can't join some organisations (writing or licensing) is because they campaign for even more and tighter copyright
laws - which is the opposite of what I want. I can't register with a licensing society (even if I wanted to) because I allow people to do more with my work than their licence would if I signed up, and I don't want to restrict people.

For all these reasons, and more, I would support simpler, clearer,
and more open intellectual property laws, with far more cases where
things are unequivocally okay. And that's speaking as an author.

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Image CC0 via Pixabay"You have done something wrong but we won't tell you what - and if you do it again we will close your account." Very 1984.

Like it or not, writers are affected by Amazon. Amazon will sell our books. Reviews on Amazon can encourage people to buy our books. So it is quite scary when an author receives an email from Amazon that threatens severe penalties (such as not being able to sell books) - without even specifying what it is the author has done to receive the warning, or offering any appeal. I experienced this recently, and it was a stressful situation. It is the equivalent of police warning you that "If you, or someone you know, continues to do something which we won't specify, then you'll be locked up, and you can't appeal against our decision or question what you're supposed to have done or what evidence we think we have." Then add to that the fact that you haven't done anything, but seem to be targeted for an act someone else (unknown to you) has done. Bizarre, isn't it? But when organisations like Amazon get so big they start to rely on software algorithms to flag things up - especially when that software is flawed, or creates false positives - things get worrying.

We have determined that your account is related to accounts that have written Amazon customer reviews for products that you have a financial interest in. This may include products that you or your competitors sell. Family members or close friends of a seller on Amazon may not write reviews for the seller’s items or negative reviews for items sold by that seller’s competitors. Sellers are not allowed to manipulate ratings, feedback, or customer reviews.

If this problem continues, we may not allow you to sell on Amazon.co.uk.

To learn more about this policy, search for "Prohibited Seller Activities and Actions" in Seller Central Help.

Sincerely,

Seller Performance Team
Amazon Services

I have no idea what it refers to, and still don't - Amazon refused to reply to any of my follow up emails. All I know is that it must be a false positive. I am not an Amazon Seller, and am unable to even login and see any contents in Seller Central Help - which is one of the huge warning flags that Amazon is incorrectly sending out automated warnings.

In case it is of interest, this is the reply I sent to Amazon nearly two weeks ago. As stated, I didn't get a reply, or even acknowledgement of their error. All that stands is the threat to my livelihood if their software creates another false positive. I write horror, but this is scarier than anything in my books. Has anyone else received a message like this?

The only products I "have a financial interest in" are my books. But my family do not write reviews. I only have two friends on Facebook, and they don't read my work. I have many followers on Facebook and Twitter and Goodreads, but they are fans of my work, not "close friends". I do not leave negative reviews for other authors - if I don't like a book, I just don't mention it. I do not write reviews for the books of close friends.

Therefore, please can you tell me _something_ about the review or user this relates to. Being told that Amazon will close your account if you do something a second time, without defining what that thing is or giving any indication of it (even though you obviously have a particular time/circumstance/review/user in mind) is unhelpful. Further, I can only assume this message has come about as a misinterpretation of something, such as a person wrote a review of one of my books, became a fan, and now follows me on Twitter.

These Policy Warning messages should include:

1. What the person is being accused of (specifically), and
2. A chance to point out if the accusation is incorrect (since the warning flag has probably generated by an algorithm rather than a person).

To send such dire warnings without the recipient having any way of avoiding further warnings or punishments (such as account closure) is stressful and unhelpful.

I do not, and never would, "manipulate ratings, feedback, or customer reviews": and I disagree with those that do. I support Amazon fully in trying to fight against that kind of unethical behaviour. But obviously you are also flagging up false positives, and there needs to be information and an appeal process for these cases. Otherwise your algorithms cannot improve, bugs will not be spotted, and genuinely innocent authors - the ones that you should be supporting - will be caught up in these false presumptions.

Further - your email says "To learn more about this policy, search for Prohibited Seller Activities and Actions in Seller Central Help". There is not even a URL included. I Googled that and found this address https://sellercentral.amazon.com/ - a site I have never seen before - but the site won't let me log in, saying "Welcome. You don't have access yet." Obviously something has gone wrong with your system if you are directing users to policies they cannot view, on systems they do not use. And again, the lack of information and an appeal opportunity makes this even more stressful and confusing.

I hope this is a misunderstanding or bug, and that I can help you get to the bottom of it before it causes problems for other users.

Yours faithfully,

Karl Drinkwater

Update: 19th April 2017

Just before I wrote the post above, I had copied my email to Amazon once more. Well, I did get a new reply last night. This.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in response to the policy warning.

Our investigations have shown that your account is related to the accounts of customers who have reviewed your book. Our policies state that family members or close friends of authors on Amazon may not write reviews for that author’s book.

We want to call your attention to this policy because violations may result in the removal of your Amazon.com KDP selling privileges.

To learn more about this policy, please see our Customer Review Guidelines Page for Authors (https://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-authors).

We cannot share any further information about this warning and we may not reply to further emails about this issue.

I was flummoxed. I have no problem with their policy. If someone who knows the author writes a review, fine, delete it. But it's me being threatened with punitive measures and pointed to policies I can't access, not the unknown person who wrote a review. And, due to the lack of information, I'm still betting this is a false positive, that they are misinterpreting something as a "related account" e.g. I used to send ARC - Advance Review Copies - to bloggers via Amazon; maybe Amazon then takes that to represent a "related account", assuming it was a gift and therefore the person was a friend? Someone who follows me on Twitter? A “Friend” fan on Goodreads? Did some author I'd reviewed in the past go on to read and review one of my books? Who knows. Amazon make it impossible to do anything but surmise.

I don't know which book, or what person, or when this applies to. There seem to be only two options.

1. Someone who knows or follows me wrote a review. I have no idea who, and I have no control over anyone writing reviews, or any ability to stop them, yet I could have my account closed for something I have no control over.

2. Amazon has mistakenly created a false positive, and since I am not given any information to help Amazon check that, I could have my account closed for something that hasn't happened.

Whichever is true, I am given no information as to what happened, and am not allowed to appeal against it anyway.

Does that not strike you as incredibly unfair?

"We cannot share any further information about this warning and we may not reply to further emails about this issue."

As a literary editor, I have to point out that sentence is incorrect. Amazon could do both of those things. It is Amazon's choice not to provide any useful information that could help to identify a false positive, or to improve your processes.

This is incredibly depressing and scary. I cannot tell you how stressed I feel right now having been accused of something I am completely unaware of. I really am knocked for six by the unfairness of it.

Karl Drinkwater

I have no control over this. No author does. This is what happens when we become connected to large organisations that minimise their accountability via their guidelines and terms and conditions/EULAs. You have no say, no matter how bizarre or unfair the issue. Pretty scary stuff. It's probably why many people keep quiet about these cases, for fear of the organisation lashing out for you having the temerity to ask what you are accused of. All authors who publish to Amazon can be held hostage in this way. Amazon customers are generally our largest market. So, there's nothing we can do. Just accept that our livelihoods, and that of our family, can be taken away for infractions we have no control over, and no way of stopping.

To end on a more positive note, I've been discussing this with fellow authors, and some of them managed to reassure me.

"Wow. That's getting crazy. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense that they don't want bogus reviews. But how do you prevent someone you may know from reviewing your book?"

"A few of my friends posted reviews when I first started and I got the same threatening email and vague responses. Amazon is a little over the top sometimes."

"Make sure your Facebook email and Amazon email are separate. Amazon and Kobo are known to delete reviews from "friends" on Facebook, whether they are real friends or not, whether they live across the world to somewhere you've never been. Apparently you aren't allowed to socialize with your readers. Kobo email and Facebook email as well. I've had a few of mine deleted of an author who lives in the UK whom I've never met, but I love his books."

"I had my 5 year old KDP account terminated 2 months ago after my best month. So did 4 others in the same group I was in. Not much of an explanation given."

"It hasn't happened to me, but I've heard of it happening to others. I've also heard of authors being dropped from KDP Select for sudden increases in page reads. The way they handle these things is less than encouraging."

"I've heard of similar letters: they're form letters sent out when Amazon thinks they've detected unusual activity, and as you surmised, it's probably a false positive. It's also a hollow threat. I don't know of any author who's been permanently banned from selling on Amazon, though I've heard of two who were permanently banned from leaving reviews. (In both cases, Amazon's actions were harsh, but justified — there were shenanigans by the authors.) And in the cases where authors have been banned due to other issues, like KU anomalies, they've been restored on appeal (e.g., Pauline Creeden). I wouldn't lose any sleep over it."

So I'm going to hope this never recurs and I can just get on with writing and selling fantastic books.

Update: 20th April 2017

I did get a final reply. Unfortunately, despite escalation, it just reiterates what has already been said, something I have found many times with Amazon. There are no answers to any of my questions. I am still in a position that I had no control over. I'll include the email anyway, for completeness.

Jeff Bezos received your email and requested that I research this issue and respond on his behalf.

Our investigations have shown that your account is related to the accounts of customers who have reviewed your book. Our policies state that family members or close friends of authors on Amazon may not write reviews for that author’s book.

Due to the proprietary nature of our business, we do not provide detailed information on how we determine that accounts are related.

We want to call your attention to this policy because violations may result in the removal of your Amazon.com KDP selling privileges.

We cannot share any further information about this warning and we may not reply to further emails about this issue.

Warmest regards,

Your feedback is helping us build Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company.

Update: 30th May 2017

I let it drop after the email above, but bizarrely, over a month later, I got ANOTHER final reply - with almost the same wording. It shows that people just copy and paste the same text. And still no answers to any of my questions, just the warning that my account can be closed for something I have no control over and they won't tell me about. Surreal!

Jeff Bezos received your email and requested that we research this issue and respond on his behalf. Thank you for taking the time to contact us in response to the policy warning.

Our investigations have shown that your account is related to the accounts of customers who have reviewed your book. Our policies state that family members or close friends of authors on Amazon may not write reviews for that author’s book.

We want to call your attention to this policy because violations may result in the removal of your Amazon.com KDP selling privileges.

To learn more about this policy, please see our Customer Review Guidelines Page for Authors (https://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-au...).

We cannot share any further information about this warning and we may not reply to further emails about this issue.

Warmest regards,

Your feedback is helping us build Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company.

Update: 13th June 2017

I don't believe this! Another email (see below). I have never done anything to "manipulate ratings, feedback or reviews", but Amazon bots keep accusing me of this and giving no further information which might actually help identify what is creating these false positives. Or, if someone has actually done something, tell the person what they've done specifically, so they can stop doing it!

We understand that you may have manipulated product reviews. Authors on Amazon.com are not allowed to manipulate ratings, feedback, or reviews.

Violations of our policies may also violate state and federal laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act. Amazon tries to maintain customer trust and provide the best possible shopping experience. For this reason, Amazon investigates if it learns that sellers, vendors, or others have attempted to manipulate reviews. It also investigates if it learns that third parties have offered reviews in exchange for compensation.

If this problem continues, we may not allow you to publish on Amazon.com.

To learn more about this policy, please see our Customer Review Guidelines Page for Authors (https://www.amazon.com/gp/community-help/customer-review-guidelines-faqs-from-authors) and see our Anti-Manipulation Policy for Customer Reviews (https://www.amazon.com/no-manipulation).

Sincerely,

Seller Performance Team
Amazon.com

I wish I knew what was going on, so that I could at least then help others in this situation! In the absence of any information from Amazon, these seem to be the only possibilities:

I used to send ARC - Advance Review Copies - to bloggers via Amazon; maybe Amazon then takes that to represent a "related account", assuming it was a gift and therefore the person was a friend? If that is the case then the lesson is clearly that no author should ever send anything bought via Amazon. But to be honest this seems increasingly unlikely, or at least can't be the only false trigger, because I am still getting these warnings and haven't sent a book through Amazon for years.

Did someone who knows me (or rather, Amazon thinks knows me), leave a review? I'm not aware of it, and certainly didn't ask them, so it wouldn't be anything I can control.

Maybe a follower on Twitter or Goodreads wrote a review of one of my books, and Amazon incorrectly flags contacts on those social media sites as "friends" and therefore assumes they are biased? That would be silly on Amazon's part, there is no connection between who you follow and who you know. I follow Stephen King on Twitter; he doesn't even know I exist.

Amazon always asks me "Was this review helpful to you?" Occasionally the nagging gets too much for me and I click yes or no. (Some reviewers even expect authors to do that, as an etiquette thing, a way of saying thanks.) But maybe that's a trick by Amazon, and if you give in to their request they then accuse you of review manipulation? I think that would be surreal and in some ways it seems unlikely - if it was something so petty it would be ridiculous
for them to keep the reason so secret that they would refuse even to comment on it. They would just state that you are meant to ignore their requests about review helpfulness. Then again, their Community Guidelines say "Any attempt to manipulate Community content [...] is strictly prohibited. If you violate our Guidelines, we may [...] delist related products, or suspend or terminate your account." What counts as an attempt to "manipulate Community content"? Amazon don't tell us. It may change over time. It may change by staff member. But it is feasible that an author upvoting or downvoting reviews on their own work (which could affect the review's visibility) might be seen as "manipulation of Community content" (reviews). We just don't know, but if Amazon record all that, and review you for another reason, and then look at that data, it could lead to serious consequences that just aren't worth it. And since, if Amazon issues warnings or punitive measures to an author, they do NOT explain what evidence they used, or give any detail, it just can't be confirmed one way or the other.

Or maybe an ARC reviewer added a standard line such as "I received a copy of this book in exchange for a review" and Amazon interpreted that as me bribing people for good reviews (giving away books is allowed, and is standard practice - but we have no control over the wording that reviewers use, and the recommended wording keeps changing, so that what Amazon ignores one year, could be grounds for review deletion the next).

I have heard that Amazon tries to track and link email addresses and keep data about it, and this could lead to even more false positives. Some authors advise against using your main professional email address or your newsletter address for anything connected to Amazon.

Maybe it is revenge. Amazon being spiteful. See, I left a review of the Kindle Fire 7 and pointed out that you have to be very careful which version you get, or you will have ads plastered on your screen. The very next day I got this email from Amazon, threatening to close my account. Amazon won't give any information, so it can't be ruled out, though I'd like to think it isn't the case.

That only leaves false positives. I can't do anything about those because Amazon won't discuss them. Presumably they won't discuss it because they don't want people to know how widespread this problem is, and how buggy their algorithms are, or how flawed their assumptions prove to be. I can only assume this is the real reason. It's worrying that Amazon show no interest in identifying false positives, and give no appeal. They seem to be threatening authors' livelihoods based on errors. It's a sad conclusion to reach.

Amazon will not clarify the issue, either because they know their assumptions are flawed, or because it might reveal some element of spying that that shouldn't be doing. I agree on cracking down on dodgy behaviour, but as usual, their software-based assumptions also leads to false positives, but no way of defending yourself against them.

Tuesday, 11 April 2017

Literature Wales is currently looking into how to run its publicly-funded Wales Book Of The Year award. The review is being outsourced to a PR/marketing firm called Mela (cost unknown), and their review is scheduled to be completed by the end of April.

In case the topic seems familiar, I have discussed this prize in the past. See these posts for background:

In summary: this prize used to be open to all books published in Wales or by Welsh authors (which you'd expect from the name), but things changed in 2013. For the 2014, 2015 and 2016 awards, Literature Wales discriminated against independent authors and changed their eligibility criteria, so a book could only be entered if the author transferred their rights to a trade publisher. It's not clear where this prejudice came from - presumably some person or group within the organisation - but it seemed rather dishonest to continue to call the prize Wales Book of the Year when it arbitrarily excluded many works that might have actually been the best Book of the Year. It's a disservice to authors and to those following the prize, as well as having other deleterious effects; for example discrimination just reinforces prejudices ("oh, only trade-published books win, so only trade-published books are good quality"). It would have been more honest to call it Wales Trade-Published Book of the Year.

It's a shame the controversy about this prize is still unresolved, as it shadows many of the good things about Literature Wales, and the many staff at (and connected to) the organisation who do good work, who are helpful and friendly, and who I've been happy to share a pint with. Along the way I have attended some of their excellent courses, and promoted them to other writers. I want it to be clear that today I'm only grumbling about this one issue of discrimination.*

Photo: Some famous authors and some soon-to-be-famous authors.Plus some whingy bloke with a funny surname.And as if on cue:

[*Though Literature Wales are the only funding source for writers in Wales and they turned down my application that was backed up by statistical and qualitative evidence when I was in desperate need of financial support, and I worried that it was because I mentioned being published in various places, including independent - but hey, shut up Karl! I've had cake and chocolate since then! And it's past, and I'm still alive as Pearl Jam sang, and I try to be thankful for all the good things rather than focussing on the worst.]

So! What shall I add that wasn't in the posts I've already linked to above? In no particular order:

There’s a brand new Arnold Bennett Prize which specifically states that all authors are welcome, however published.

Another exciting prize that is open to all authors, regardless of how their books are published, is The Jhalak Prize.

The £40,000 Folio Prize has relaunched, not only taking self-published titles, but also opening up to non-fiction as well as fiction.

Do non-discriminatory prizes get too many entries? No. Can it be managed? Of course. An insider told me it's really not hard to do - the Folio prize starts with a form submission about the book and goes from there. My contact said some prize bodies are initially terrified of the perceived extra work involved, but the feedback she had from another really huge prize (that is also open to independent authors) - the Young Writer of the Year Award - was that despite massive publicity they struggled to get any indies to enter.

Also: if an organisation was worried about the number of entries, they can implement quality controls – this is far better than arbitrary exclusions. Apply the same criteria to all books, trade-published or independent. Personally I'd exclude books with more than one typo or error (grammatical, printing, formatting): that would get the list down pretty quickly, without prejudice. But they could be more lenient than me and still have a manageable list with poor-quality works excluded.

What a prize should NOT do (if it wants to be open) is charge fees to enter. Costs that can be swallowed with no problem by a large publishing house such as the Big Five (Hachette, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster) would be impossible for an independent author or small publishing house. This is why independent authors could not win the Costa Book Awards (the prize requires a £5,000 fee from publishers if a book is to be shortlisted), or be part of the Richard & Judy Bookclub ("publishers have to discount their books heavily – typically by around 65 per cent – to get them into the front of book stores, and are also required to contribute towards steep marketing costs").

If Literature Wales remove the unfair discrimination, I promise to promote their open prize on this website.

Someone recently described Gladstone’s Library to me as “stuck in the 1950s” because its smallprint was so old-fashioned and included prejudice against independent and hybrid writers ("We do not accept self-published authors of any kind. No correspondence can be entered into."). I don’t want Literature Wales to get permanently tarred with the same brush, I want my national literature organisation to be at the forefront of modern culture, relevant, where it belongs to be.

My article linked to above, "A World Of Writers And Readers: Understanding Modern Publishing" makes it clear, but independent publishing is not vanity publishing. Vanity publishing is generally paying a third party an inflated sum for a poor service, all smoke and mirrors trading off the lure of being able to say "Wow! I'm published!" before realising that it isn't being published at all. It is basically paying for a printer. Maybe with unethical rights grabs in the process. Self-publishing means being in charge of it all yourself. This encompasses the range from unprofessional (no quality control, amateur, perhaps for personal fulfillment - which is great but which won't trouble national prizes), to professional independent publishers. It's the range of quality and diversity that confuses things, especially for those who only know about traditional publishing. At the professional end of independent publishing books go through all the same processes that they would at any publishing house (and sometimes more), but with the difference that the author chooses who to hire and use for each job (beta readers, literary editors, copyeditors, proofreaders, interior designers, cover designers, distributors etc etc), and the author has the final say on blurb, marketing, cover etc. The author foots the bill for all those services (usually £1-3,000) but retains all ownership and copyright and can publish in any formats, languages and territories they wish.

The Arts Council For Wales (ACW) distribute public money set aside to support literature. They pass it all on to Literature Wales, making Literature Wales the only source of funding for writers in Wales. Literature Wales has annual bursaries for developing new works, but does not set aside any money for a hardship fund (as some other organisations do). So the only option is the once-a-year bursary application, even if it is an immediate and desperate need. There is no flexibility in this. The Arts Council For Wales could stipulate that some is reserved for a hardship fund, but they choose not to have any such guidelines. (It is similar to how ACW treat the Wales Book of the Year - totally hands-off - and why, when I first asked them why they were funding a prize that excluded Welsh writers, and not stipulating that Literature Wales should consider all Wales-connected books, ACW had no interest at all). It was no surprise then when I recently discovered that The Arts Council For Wales invite comment on their Facebook page but delete/hide any questions they don't want to answer (with no explanation or response). They do the same with Tweets, so obviously miss the “social” bit of social media, and think it is just a one-way system to do self promotion. It's a shame, because how can an organisation improve if it doesn't listen to those it represents? Though ACW does have a reputation for being a quite old-fashioned and small-c conservative institution. Sorry, another aside while I'm talking about official organisations connected with writing. I get distracted easily.

I'm going to stop. That is some first class waffling and haranguing, and a lot to take in. At the end of the day we will hopefully see fairness as things become more open and inclusive again, for the benefit of all authors and readers, who are the two central pillars without which all of publishing collapses. I try to be positive, and in this world that's sometimes hard, but By The Power Of Greyskull everyone working for good can continue to shape things to create a fairer and more compassionate world. And I'm not even talking about books any more! Peace and love!

(And if my national prize doesn't open up then dammit, I'm moving to Scotland.)

Update 29th April 2017

I'm not sure if the consultants, Mela, received or used all the evidence I'd provided. I had also offered to answer questions on any of the issues raised, but wasn't taken up on the offer. I did get a noncommittal reply after I'd contacted them a number of times, but was none the wiser about whether they'd considered or used my evidence.

I knew nothing about it when I went, and it was all the better for it. I'm one of those people who hates knowing too much - often I can't even watch trailers because they give away so much of the plot (and as a creator, I'm adept at filling in the spaces - most trailers destroy my desire to see a film, even before they add that stupid reverse-bass-boom cliched sound effect that gets more airtime than the Wilhelm scream or BWAAAAA). Get Out kept me guessing for a good while, there were so many possibilities.

Some of my spoiler-free thoughts.

Get Out has great acting throughout, especially Daniel Kaluuya (Chris) and Betty Gabriel (Georgina), who were mesmerising at times; but all the actors were utterly convincing in their roles.

Get Out was never boring. There was always something to see or think about. It's a masterclass in cutting out the flab and keeping up momentum without losing coherence. So taut that even a momentary shot of choosing things in a bakery ties in to the plot and characterisation. Not a moment wasted.

I couldn't find anything to criticise. That's rare for me when I see a film.

There was some beauty in the film too. Balance is important.

Excellent use of sound.

Humour well-done, at just the right times, to relieve-but-enhance tension.

Do not read on if you haven't seen it - SPOILERS!!!!

And further thoughts as I walked home at night (passing a parked white car with its lights on at one point, which was fun). I haven't read anything about the film yet, so this is all speculation, but I know I'm right. :-)
With Get Out I really had no idea what direction it would go in.
The name gave nothing away. Alien invasion? Serial killer? Torture porn? Psychological breakdown?
Would it be a variant of Them (2006) or The Strangers (2008)? Was there something in the woods? Was it playing off The Visit (2015) - a thought that seemed especially likely in the early jump scare of an old woman
wandering a house at night. But Chris's friend's obsession with sex slaves was the closest to the truth, since for me the touchstone is obviously The Stepford Wives (1975), based on Ira Levin's 1972 book, but replacing sex
politics with skin colour politics.

I loved the depth of connection in images. Car-hit dying deer = his mother by the road = white father's hatred of deer because they "over-breed" and are "taking over" = deer head on the wall watching him undergo the change = his antagonist's mother by the road hit by his car. So much fun connecting the dots. And I said the sound was good, but it also helped reinforce all this: I especially liked the first night, where the dying deer sound morphed into a mosquito - both blood connections - reinforcing the deer/mother analogies, and preceding Chris's major encounter with his girlfriend's mother.

Talking of connections and significance, another one impressed me. At the start there was a momentary shot of Rose choosing things in a bakery. Even this wasn't just pointless segue - it turns out to be ominous in retrospect. I think there were only two scenes where Rose was seen totally alone. The bakery, and using her laptop at the end. In both of them she is perusing brown items like a catalogue, humans reduced to a small-size commodities that makes them seem identical, items she can consume later after making her choice. Chilling characterisation.

I said some of the acting was mesmerising at times (I couldn't resist that pun in relation to the teaspoon control). As a writer I liked the hypnotism element, words gaining more power than muscle and martial arts. It also led on to scenes that reminded me of the final chapters of Turner, which weren't in my first draft but were added after discussion with my editors.

What else? The ending. They didn't do the obvious Night of The Living Dead ending, even after setting it up with the racist cop earlier, and the audience knowing it would tie in with real-world events. As earlier, they made you expect one thing, but then surprised you. They'd made their point simply by creating that expectation. Restraint and control were keywords for the whole film, in multiple ways.

Wednesday, 5 April 2017

This isn't book-related (not that irrelevance has ever stopped me), but I just thought I'd share this as a bit of fun/personal stuff.

When I was a librarian I taught classes of hundreds.

As an author I've done readings to ... fewer than hundreds, but still some pretty big groups.

I'd never played music in public before though. I've been teaching myself to play basic guitar over the last few years. Maybe my love of music is why I wrote 2000 Tunes. Well, I took a few lessons and did my first gig on Sunday! Since I'm used to being in front of groups I wasn't nervous at all, and just had a great time. It was over before I knew it. Here's a few pics of my band's performance to prove I was there. :-)

They were a lovely set of band mates to perform with.

The cat hated the rehearsals at my house, mind you.

There were actually two mini bands for the rock school performance. My band did these songs:

Creep (Radiohead)

All The Small Things (Blink 182)

Go Your Own Way (Fleetwood Mac)

Bad Reputation (Joan Jett)

There was also a brilliant open mic session after we finished, so much talent
- I'll try and go to those in future. You get goose bumps when you hear
brilliant music live, and see the talented people who can make it.